Thanks! All those have some design oversight. I’m particularly interested in the split between CD and DD (or LD if the team doesn’t have a DD)—in practice, what divisions of labor have you found to be most productive?

Also I think the game design portfolio issue is slowly resolving itself with the codification of game design curriculums, e.g.kids have their sites with their student projects—a situation that currently favors students from elites like CMU/USC et al

I’m all for replacing the onsite interview gauntlet for game design candidates, rife with “culture fit”/“oh so you like Animal Crossing too” bias, with various forms of live testing. E.g. run a cross-disciplinary brainstorm to address a specific creative problem.

Meanwhile, it's a pretty normal expectation for Capital-D Designers (outside games) to have portfolios that conform to broadly-understood expectations and give portfolio presentations (n the context of interviews). Game design is just an immature discipline, full of charlatans

I understand. I'm personally fine with long tests, and have spent way more time on tests, with all sorts of results. (I'm legit concerned when an interviewer _doesn't_ test me.) I'm more intrigued by the root issue: it's hard to assess skill without seeing work.

According with “their time,” I encourage them to set the meeting agenda. Certainly doesn’t stop me from adding Topics. Shooting the breeze isn’t an effective 1:1, though can be useful sporadically to demonstrate I’m not an android.

Except with my boss, I treat 1:1s with reports and peers as “their time.” They can use it or elect not to—whatever is useful to them given the situation. Though I soft-require a 50% attendance ratio for reports.